Kootenai County v. State Board of Equalization of State of Idaho

• Citation: 169 P. 935,31 Idaho 155
• Parties: KOOTENAI COUNTY, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff, v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO et al., Defendants
• Decision Date: 28 December 1917
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Idaho

169 P. 935

31 Idaho 155

KOOTENAI COUNTY, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff, v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO et al., Defendants

Supreme Court of Idaho

December 28, 1917

WRIT OF REVIEW - STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION - FUNCTIONS OF-STATE AUDITOR-STATUTORY DUTY - WRIT OF MANDATE.

1. A writ of review will lie when an inferior tribunal, board or officer, exercising judicial functions, has exceeded the jurisdiction of such tribunal, board or officer, and there is no appeal nor, in the judgment of the court, any plain speedy or adequate remedy.

2. When the state board of equalization has determined the number of miles of electric current transmission lines in a certain county and the value thereof, and of the operating property its judicial function with respect thereto terminates.

3. When the state board of equalization has determined the number of miles of electric current transmission lines in a certain county and the assessed valuation thereof, and of the operating property in such county, it becomes the statutory duty of the state auditor to certify such amount to that county, and that duty may be enforced by a writ of mandate notwithstanding any order to the contrary from such board.

4. Where plaintiff can obtain the relief sought by a writ of mandate to compel the performance of an official duty, a writ of review will be denied.

[As to persons entitled to prosecute writ of certiorari, see note in 103 Am.St. 110]

Original proceeding to obtain a writ of review. Alternative writ issued; motion to quash and demurrer sustained.

Motion to quash granted. Petition denied, with costs to defendants.

Ezra R Whitla and Bert A. Reed, for Plaintiff.

The order of the board, not being subject to collateral attack, therefore prevents Kootenai county from taking any other proceedings in any other court or tribunal to collect the taxes which have been erroneously paid to the other counties, as by simply showing the order of the board of equalization it would be conclusive of the right to collect the same until set aside. (United Globe Mines v. Gila County, 12 Ariz. 217, 100 P. 774; Stanley v. Board of Supervisors, 121 U.S. 535, 550, 7 S.Ct. 1234, 30 L.Ed. 1000.)

"For the correction of the improper exercise of such excessive jurisdiction, the writ of certiorari, and not mandamus, affords the proper relief." (Heitman v. Morgan, 10 Idaho 562, 79 P. 225; Levan v. Richards, 4 Idaho 667, 43 P. 574.)

The court unquestionably has full authority to correct and modify the acts of the board of equalization if found erroneous. (Baker v. Superior Court, 71 Cal. 583, 12 P. 685.)

T. A. Walters, Atty. Genl., and A. C. Hindman and J. P. Pope, Assistants, for Defendant Board, F. L. Moore, for Latah County, and F. A. McCall, for Banner County.

This question was gone into fully in the comparatively recent case of Northwest Light & Water Co. v. Alexander, 29 Idaho 557, 160 P. 1106. Fundamentally, the same question is involved in the instant case, namely, the right of the courts to review and change proceedings of the state board of equalization.

RICE, J. Budge, C. J., and Morgan, J., concur.

OPINION

RICE, J.

This is an original proceeding in this court to obtain a writ of review directed to the state board of equalization, commanding it to certify to this court the proceedings of the state board of equalization for the year 1916 in regard to the assessment of the property of the Washington Water Power Company in Kootenai county. An alternative writ was issued. The state board of equalization appeared and moved to quash the writ upon the grounds that "neither the said writ nor petition upon which it is based state facts sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to the relief demanded or any relief whatever as against the alleged grievances in said writ and petition averred." Several of the counties of the state were also made parties to the proceeding, and Latah county appeared and filed a demurrer to the petition.

The material allegations in the petition are in substance as follows: That during the year 1916, the state board of equalization met and proceeded to equalize the assessments of the various public utilities of the state of Idaho as required by law; that the said board assessed and set the valuation of the electric plant of the Washington Water Power Company within the state of Idaho at the sum of $ 2,250,000; that the said board determined the mileage of the transmission lines of the Washington Water Power Company in the various counties as follows: Bonner county, 19.8 miles; Kootenai county, 114.33 miles; Latah county, 35.206 miles; Nez Perce, .855 miles; Shoshone county, 101.6 miles; that said board of equalization assessed the said transmission lines in the sum of $ 4,980.24 per mile in all of said counties, and the plant of the said Washington Water Power Company within Kootenai county in the sum of $ 900,000, making the assessed valuation within Kootenai county, $ 1,469,391. No complaint is made of the foregoing proceedings of the board.

It is further...